Law of Wills, 2016A

In Alexander’s Estate v. Hatcher, 193 Miss. 369, 9 So.2d 791, 792 (1942), a hand printed holographic
will was challenged. It was printed with a lead pencil. The claimed testator was able to write in
cursive. The question was whether the decedent had written the proposed will. The decision was
that he had not. That the will was printed, as opposed to cursively written, was not a prima facie basis
for its rejection.
Accordingly, I conclude that the use of hand printing or block lettering not only satisfies the
definition of handwriting but also is consistent with the goals of N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3 in requiring
handwriting.
Must a signature be in cursive or may it also be printed? N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3 requires the signature on a
holographic will to be in the testator’s handwriting. As defined in Webster’s New World Collegiate
Dictionary 1079 (1973), a “signature” is the name of a person written with that person’s own hand.
Cf., Matthews v. Deane, 201 N.J.Super. 583, 584, 493 A.2d 632 (Ch.Div.1984)(which approved printed
signatures on a recall petition, but defined “signature” as “that which an individual intends to be his
signature.”) But see, In re Waldick Aero-Space Devices, Inc., 71 B.R. 932, 936 (D.N.J. 1987), which
permitted a typewritten signature on a security agreement since it was consistent with existing
commercial practices.
By definition a signature is not necessarily inscribed in cursive. It only must be the writer’s name in
the writer’s handwriting. It need have no particular “cast or form.” In re Hyland’s Will, 27 N.Y.S. 961,
963 (Surrog.Ct.1892). For the purpose of N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3 a signature may be in cursive or in block
lettering, as long as it is the writer’s name and in the writer’s hand.
Marie asserts that, since the claimed will does not contain the testator’s signature at the end of the
writing, it is invalid. However, if decedent printed his name at the beginning of the document and
intended it to be his signature, it will suffice. In re Siegel’s Estate, 214 N.J.Super. 586, 592, 520 A.2d
798 (App. Div.1987). This, of course, assumes that the purported holographic will was written by
decedent. This assumption is at issue because of the third of the widow’s challenges to admitting the
holographic will to probate.
Marie posits the unlikelihood that decedent wrote the claimed will. Her stance is based on more than
mere conjecture. She claims that decedent always wrote in cursive when he wrote out something or
signed his name. She has provided copies of numerous documents in support of this claim.
Additionally, when signing his name, decedent invariably included his middle initial. The signature
on the holographic will lacks any middle initial. The genuineness of the handwriting constituting a
holographic will is a sine qua non for its admissibility into probate. A bona fide factual dispute exists
as to that genuineness. I cannot now rule on the will’s admission into probate. A resolution of that
factual dispute and whether decedent and Marie were living separately from one another will be
determined at a trial to be scheduled in the near future.
Finally, it is not fatal to the will’s acceptance that the date on it is obviously incorrect. The general
rule is that an error in the dating will not vitiate a holographic will. (citations omitted) Here, the
misstatement of the year will not nullify the will.
545